> On 28 Jan 2020, at 17:07, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28/01/2020 02.46, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote: >> Folks, you have to understand that The Qt Company must pay its developers! > > Sure... but how's that working out for them under their current business > model? Is twisting the screws even tighter on customers that (based on > my impression from the lists) are *already* abandoning ship because they > can't afford licenses going to help? Does antagonizing the community help?
The Qt Company is a public company; we are not yet profitable, but things are getting there. Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt is, making it a sustainable business should be in the interest of anyone that wants to see Qt continue to be a successful and evolving technology. Making backporting of fixes to old branches a commercial-only service is an attempt to encourage more companies that are basing their business on Qt-based software to contribute with funding. Ideally without antagonizing the community, but that’s obviously a difficult balance to strike. Would making Qt cheaper make it more likely that the Qt Company becomes a sustainable business? Would giving a few licenses out for free to contributors help with that? I doubt it would make much of a difference. Should we turn the Qt Company into a business for which Qt becomes a secondary priority, and where we develop Qt only as a means to an end (which would be the kitware business model)? I really don’t think that would serve Qt very well. Maybe you all have great ideas that we missed though. What kind of change do you think would give companies a really good reason to buy a license, without at the same time hurting the community? Cheers, Volker _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
